Amalek

[Ramona]

LOL.

You know, for some reason, you reminded me of last night's Simpson's episode, in which the Gollum was the primary event.

You ain't made o' mud are you?

Nope, I'm made of chickpeas and candyfloss.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ah here is the verse about Amalek always being in every generation:
Exodus 17:16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

I knew it was in there somewhere! Hehehehe

One thing I like about this Hebrew/English interlinear is I can found out where Exact forms of both hebrew/greek words are used elsewhere.

This particular word for "amelek" has the prefix "in" before it and wondered why that interlinear only showed #06002 in 5 places. Interesting. Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Exodus 17:16 And he is saying that hand on throne of Yahh war to YHWH in-`Amaleq from generation generation.

1 Samuel 28:18 As which not you listened in voice of YHWH, and not you did in heat of anger of him in-`Amaleq on so the thing, this, YHWH does to you the day, this.

in-Amelek Exodus 17:9, 10, 16, 1 Samuel 28:18.

Strong's Number H6002 matches the Hebrew עמלק (`Amaleq).
AV — Amalek 24, Amalekites 15

 

[sidhe]

Says the woman living in a country founded by traitors.

Highly accurate. The British complained about the tactics of the Americans, who were emulating the tactics of Native Americans used during the French-and-Indian War. By rules of European warfare, ambushes and such were thought to be quite barbaric. Of course, as they were facing a highly trained and well-financed army, they had to do whatever they could.

If Washington and company had lost, we in America would be learning about the traitorous cowards who fought dirty in rebellion against the gracious British.

All things are a matter of perspective. I'm proud of our traitorous founders who engaged in unconventional warfare, but I fully realize that, if the term had existed, the British would've called a bunch of folks who used snipers in trees, wore civilian clothes so as to be indistinguishable from noncombatants, hid in civilian houses, and attacked from behind, "terrorists."

 

[Secundulus]

Says the woman living in a country founded by traitors.

No, you are only a traitor when you lose.

 

[johnd]

Shalom. What is your view of Zech 13:5?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Zechariah 13:5 And he says 'Not a-prophet I, man tilling ground/0127 'adamah I, that adam he-caused-me-to-acquire/07069 qanah from youths of me".
And he says to him: "what the smitings/04347 makkah, these, between hands of you"? And he says "which I was smitten/05221 nakah House of lovers/0157 'ahab of me".

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Psalm 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

 

[johnd]

JohnD:

I suppose 12 pages of posts is a lot to expect a late comer to read!

Amalek was one of Israel's adversaries in early biblical times. But there was something different about the Amalekites that set them apart from all of Israel's other foes: The Amalekites were essentially a terrorist culture, meaning they targeted the innocent. The would not confront Israel in battle. Rather, the Amalekites would lie in wait for stragglers as Israel moved through the land: the old, the sick, the women and children. Rather than fighting Israel's soldiers, the Amalekites targeted those who quite specifically were not fighters and could not fight. For that reason, HaShem told Israel NOT TO FORGET how the Amalekites terrorized them as the left Egypt and moved into Canaan. HaShem gave quite a different instructions regarding the Amalekites than ANY OTHER enemy -- the Amalekites were to be killed down to the very last woman and child, and none of their goods or gold or livestock was to be taken or profited from.

Amalek has come to mean those who fulfill BOTH of the following criteria:
1. They seek the destruction of the Jews
2. They target the innocent.

Hitler and the nazis, for example, meet both of those criteria, and are considered the "Amalek" of the 20th century.

Hamas would be an example of a current group which meets both these criteria.

Correct and the Amalekites were not utterly destroyed leading to Haman the Agagite (Amalekite). Yes yes I know all this.

But what about the predictive prophecy about the crucifixion on Mount Moriah? Also depicted in the akidah (Genesis 22)?

 

[johnd]

Exodus 17
1 And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys, according to the commandment of the LORD, and pitched in Rephidim: and there was no water for the people to drink.
2 Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD?
3 And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?
4 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.
5 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.
6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
7 And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?
8 Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.
10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.
11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
12 But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.
13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

You said the memorial was to put Amalek in special denouncement for the methods used to terrorize the Jews. I see no evidence of that here thought the methods were dastardly and cowardly. Rather the Lord was pointing to something greater going on in the battle, a depiction of how God would defeat sin (with appropriately Amalek representing sin).

 

[johnd]

The "Palestinians" are not a people, but a mish mosh of arabs and persians and africaners who are Muslim, Christian, secular, and mostly renegades who originally were given a homeland in Trans Jordan... present day Jordan... which King Hussein claimed as his homeland (though he was actually Bedouin) when the Brits were dividing up the Middle East into tracts to appease the people there as it withdrew from the region.

When the (Jewish) inventor of smokeless gunpowder turned the tide of WW I for England, the Brits in the Balfour declaration promised a Jewish homeland (which included Trans Jordan). Winston Churchill was instrumental in siphoning off so much of that mandate to appease local factions into the scraggly borders Israel possessed when they became a modern state. Interesting that the great British Empire deflated to a second world power state at that point n history... and Churchill was voted out of office before the conclusion of WW II.

The "Palestinians" were malcontents who were exiled from their provided for homeland in Trans Jordan.

The Jews in scraggly seven miles wide at its narrowest point Israel welcomed the homeless "Palestinians" into their land. And the thanks they have gotten for it over the decades since has been their (the "Palestinians") attempts to utterly annihilate them (the Jews) and when the Jews raise a finger to stop them... ignorant people hold them in contempt.

I hope this has educated you somewhat.

So in the same way the Jews dealt with the Amalkelites, are you willing to deal with the Palestinians in the same manner? Would you join the Israeli army and go on a campaign of eradicating every single Palestinian? Are you prepared to ravage their women, chop off their children's heads, and kill off the disabled elderly? It was done in the Old Testament, so is it ok to do it now? Yes or no. Let's just get to the point of your OP.

 

[johnd]

Nope, I'm made of chickpeas and candyfloss.

That's some description phrase (below your name) you got there...

 

[Vene]

No, you are only a traitor when you lose.

So, if Palestine wins and does manage to destroy Israel, would you say that they weren't terrorists?

 

[Secundulus]

So, if Palestine wins and does manage to destroy Israel, would you say that they weren't terrorists?

If that heppens, then the victors write the history. It is as it has always been.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If that heppens, then the victors write the history. It is as it has always been.

In that case, the Romans were victors over the 1st century Jews but Josephus appears to be the only one that wrote about. Interesting.

Zeph 1:16 A day of trumpet and alarm Against the fortified cities And against the high towers. 17 "I will bring distress upon men, And they shall walk like blind men, Because they have sinned against the LORD;

http://www.davieapostolicchurch.com/studies/destuct/

.......The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins

Before their final demolition, however, Titus took a survey of the city and its fortifications ; and, while contemplating their impregnable strength, could not help ascribing his success to the peculiar interposition of the ALMIGHTY HIMSELF. "Had not God himself (exclaimed he) aided out operations, and driven the Jews from their fortresses, it would have been absolutely impossible to have taken them ; for what could men, and the force of engines, have done against such towers as these ?"

 

[mikkyo]

Listen carefully (for the umpteenth time): Israel does not TARGET INNOCENTS.

They still target them indirectly. They acknowledge this, so what difference does it make?

There are many ways to target innocents, not just suicide bombers, but Israel does none of them. Israel has a policy opposed to the targeting of innocents.

And that is why I was telling you that Palestinians should simply acquire tanks, aircraft, and even nuclear weapons to meet the high standards of the Israelis. This way they can fight the Israeli military head on.

 

[mikkyo]

The "Palestinians" are not a people, but a mish mosh of arabs and persians and africaners who are Muslim, Christian, secular, and mostly renegades

You forgot they are also a mish mosh of Jews too.

I hope this has educated you somewhat.

Somewhat, but how about providing links supporting your claim.

 

[mikkyo]

I didn't say one way or the other. I have not made a decision.

But your god ordered murder and violence in the old testament. What are you so scared of, if that is what you believe in?

I am bothered by the issue. That is why I began the thread.

If I were you, I would be bothered too. That is why I would never be a Jew, Muslim, or Christian. Do not worry though. The Iraelis are just as worried. How can they eradicate the Palestinians when the rest of the world knows they stole the Palestinian land. That is another reason why there is no solution.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Yes, I've heard that one. One of the most stupid things the left says.

Actually, "the left" has nothing whatsoever to do with it, in spite of being America's favourite scapegoat for just about anything.

It's a perfectly observable phenomenon anywhere.

Guess what the Nazis called the Resistance - yeah, right: "terrorists".

What did the British have to say about the Indians seeking independence?

And how did the Romans rationalize their conquests and their atrocities against countries all around the Mediterranean? They were just "protecting their homeland".

That's not to say that terrorists are always right - quite the contrary. I think what the Palestinians have been doing, especially from the 1970s onwards, has put them in the wrong. Abducting planes, bombing buses, schools and street cafés, having snipers shoot at kibbuzim - all of that deserves harsh judgement.

I also feel that this conflict could have ended in the late 1940s, when the UN encouraged the warring factions in current-day Israel to found two separate states: Israel and Palestine, with Jerusalem as a neutral zone. The Israelis were okay with that - the Palestinians weren't.
For them, it was always about "driving the Jews into the sea". And that's why I can't support their cause, in spite of the maltreatment they undoubtedly received time and again.

Had they pulled a Gandhi instead, specializing in non-violent resistance, their position would certainly be stronger and more convincing. Yet with all the gun-waving, I can only see them as the cause of violence rather than merely its victims.

 

[sidhe]

Actually, "the left" has nothing whatsoever to do with it, in spite of being America's favourite scapegoat for just about anything.

It's a perfectly observable phenomenon anywhere.

Guess what the Nazis called the Resistance - yeah, right: "terrorists".

What did the British have to say about the Indians seeking independence?

And how did the Romans rationalize their conquests and their atrocities against countries all around the Mediterranean? They were just "protecting their homeland".

That's not to say that terrorists are always right - quite the contrary. I think what the Palestinians have been doing, especially from the 1970s onwards, has put them in the wrong. Abducting planes, bombing buses, schools and street cafés, having snipers shoot at kibbuzim - all of that deserves harsh judgement.

I also feel that this conflict could have ended in the late 1940s, when the UN encouraged the warring factions in current-day Israel to found two separate states: Israel and Palestine, with Jerusalem as a neutral zone. The Israelis were okay with that - the Palestinians weren't.
For them, it was always about "driving the Jews into the sea". And that's why I can't support their cause, in spite of the maltreatment they undoubtedly received time and again.

Had they pulled a Gandhi instead, specializing in non-violent resistance, their position would certainly be stronger and more convincing. Yet with all the gun-waving, I can only see them as the cause of violence rather than merely its victims.

QFT

The Palestinian cause is sympathetic. The techniques by which they have tried to advance that cause make it impossible to sympathize though.

 

[johnd]

You forgot they are also a mish mosh of Jews too.

Your turn to provide support / evidence of your claim.

Somewhat, but how about providing links supporting your claim.

Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

British Mandate 1922 (Churchill)

Transjordan (note area covered in map of original mandate to Jews)

 

[johnd]

Notes on Islam (scroll down to "Recent and Future History Notes"

Palestinians, natives or aliens?

 

[johnd]

Where the Paletinians Homeland Really Is

Overview